Appeal For A Variance: Fill & Download for Free

I was in a land-use dispute against my neighbor, an NBA coach, in which I represented myself.I wanted to make a small addition onto my home, which required a variance (an exception to the building code, based on precedent). I am not an architect or lawyer, but my property was small and unusually shaped, so fit the City of Seattle’s code requirements for the exception. Basically, I had an 800 sq. ft. 1890s home surrounded by new luxury townhouses (think ‘Up’).My addition would partially block the coach’s view of downtown from his townhouse, so he hired Seattle’s largest law firm to fight the building permit. Views are not protected, but he had recently won $7 million in a defamation lawsuit, so he was confident in his lawyers. They did a good job harassing and intimidating me… and slowing the permitting process.They gave me hell for almost a year before the city finally granted me the variance and building permit. Then the coach sued me anyway, and the case went before a district judge.Knowing views aren’t protected by the building code, his team of high-priced lawyers argued to the judge that I was building too close to the property line. They claimed that I was setting a precedent, that granting a variance in my situation would be the first time the city would have ever granted such a permit. They had a very slick presentation with charts, graphs, and photos. I looked pretty pitiful representing myself with my little stack of papers.They spent about an hour and presented a bullet-proof case. But then I had my I rest my case moment:Me: You said the city has never granted a variance in this zone. How do you know this?Coach’s Lawyer: We reviewed every record of every variance in this zone, and no variances have ever been granted (in this type of situation).Me: The city’s entire computer records?Coach’s Lawyer: Yes.Me: Do you know how far back those records go?Coach’s Lawyer: Uh… I… I’m not… let’s see (group of lawyers quickly looking through their pile of papers).Me: 1983. Before that, everything was on microfilm. If you had reviewed the microfilm, you would have found nine instances in this zone, including your client’s own property, where the city has granted variances in this identical situation.I handed his lawyers and the judge my little printouts from the pre-digital age records. One of the lawyers gave me a little nod of respect. 15 minutes later the judge threw out their case. I got my permit. They did not appeal.Ironically, the coach didn’t even live in his townhouse. He only used it when he was in town for games, and that year Seattle lost its NBA franchise.

The City's zoning code has a blanket height restriction of 155 feet. The code is here: Zoning - Boston Redevelopment Authority.Building can be taller than 155 feet, but must go through the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. There is also a category called a Planned Development Area (PDA), which is a site over 1 acre, that allows greater height through the ZBA.The problem with an 80 story building in Boston is that the likeliest sites, Downtown and Back Bay, have severe natural limitations. In Downtown, proximity to the airport means that the FAA often requires building heights to be limited. In Back Bay, shadow laws around the Common, Public Garden and Esplanade, as well as opposition to height from the neighborhoods of Back Bay and South End limit it.Boston has had proposals for 800-1000 feet (1,000 feet too tall for Hub tower, FAA rules) but none has materialized just yet.

An 8-second stroll down memory lane:Let’s face it. Even with his jizz, urrh, excuse me, DNA found splattered on Monica Lewinsky’s bodice, Bill Clinton was not prosecuted for perjury, even though he was under oath. He claimed that according to his science teacher it wasn’t strict-definition biology sex unless his swimmers got within hailing distance of one of her ova. He lost a few lawyer privileges, and that was it. Instead, how many adoring acolytes in the Democratic Party enthusiastically waved their arm eagerly volunteering to don the presidential knee pads and service the presidential member for… I don’t exactly know why? Guess they thought he stood for something.Prosecuting Dems for perjury would be like arresting fishermen for lying.Here in Texas lying is sport. We have a saying, “The first liar don’t stand a chance.” We play for grins, for the aesthetic appeal of a good whopper, whether it be fishing, hunting, golf… you name it.For Dems, it’s an ideological contest played for scalps. Anita Hill was close but no cigar on Clarence Thomas’s scalp (she claimed to have nabbed at least a pubic hair). She was the recipient of a $1.1M book advance for her efforts, as a consolation prize.And who can forget the fatuous speech that Ted “Waitress Sandwich” Kennedy regaled the Senate chamber with lambasting Robert Bork? …Or Hillary Clinton’s blame-the-victim “bimbo eruption” campaign?When the Dem’s put out the call on Craig’s List or its equivalent for people who wanted to tell a tale of woe at the hands of nominee Kavagaugh, they came out of the woodwork. Sadly, the Dems chose not to go with the young woman who claimed as a college student to have frequented high-school gang-rape parties where she was absolutely certain young Brett may have been present. Alas, would’ve made for great Senate theater.They went instead with the PhD as being somewhat more credible. The long-time sex-crime prosecutor who handled the questioning cited a dozen or more inconsistencies in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and summarized by saying that she would not prosecute a “he said-she said” case but that Ford’s testimony did not rise even to that level. In point of fact, not one aspect of her story was corroborated.But that’s not perjury.Even with GoFundMe receipts of $0.75 million, (before any book deal is discussed (the size of which would depend on whether there is a scalp or no), it’s not perjury.But fishiness is emerging, fishiness beyond the inconsistencies obvious the day of the testimony. For example, it seems the point of her therapy session was to get a variance from Palo Alto zoning laws that would allow her to add a second entrance to the front of her home, an entrance now used so that student assistants can come and go as they assist her. Her session with the therapist did not mention Judge Kavanaugh, but it was the first mention that a youthful sexual assault had occurred and left her with claustrophobia necessitating a variance.And, by the way, though she has made transcripts of those sessions an important material part of her allegations, she refuses to release them… hardly a credibility builder.A second bit of fishiness concerns her curious unfamiliarity with polygraph tests. More than one commenter the day of the hearing remarked how curious it was that a PhD psychologist professed to be so ignorant about lie-detector tests. Now we have an ex-boyfriend of hers saying he was there when she coached a friend on taking a polygraph.It gets curiouser and curiouser. But the Dems knew all along all she would be good for was buying a little time, the reason they concocted a ruse to allow them to spring her at the last minute. And with the time bought, what did the Dems busily do?Senator Warren was caught on super-secret video stating this was the opening that could bring down Kavanaugh. How? What they always do… move the goalposts.Much as it would be fun to think in the same fantasy terms as the Dems in this situation—settle the score by taking a few scalps, that would be taking our eyes off the prize. Some key Senate races and quite a few House races have started favoring the GOP. Our best course of action is the old-fashioned, painstaking democratic way—keep the House and Senate.So, vote like our lives and prospects for the future depend on it. They do.Add: Bad news for Dems—Republican women enthusiasm jumped 12 points since July. Trump said women are "very angry" about the Kavanaugh smear. He's right https://t.co/pd0sOBWPw9 pic.twitter.com/VhBKeYPuJn— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizWFB) October 3, 2018